A comprehensive 4E assessment of geothermal-assisted hydrogen production via an ORC–PEM integrated system: Comparative evaluation of conventional and low-GWP working fluids

Öz

In this study, a geothermal-assisted Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)–Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer system is comprehensively investigated for green hydrogen production. A total of 4,775 operational data points obtained from a geothermal power plant were used to model and evaluate the proposed system. Six ORC working fluids, namely R134a, R290, R227ea, R1234yf, R1234ze(E), and R1243zf, were comparatively assessed from thermodynamic, economic, and environmental perspectives. The results showed that the selection of the working fluid significantly affects the overall system performance. Among the investigated fluids, R227ea provided the highest thermodynamic performance, with a net electricity production of 44.66 kW, hydrogen production rate of 3.17 × 10⁻⁴ kg/s, energy efficiency of 4.036%, and exergy efficiency of 1.812%. In comparison, R1234yf showed the best performance among the low-GWP alternative fluids, achieving 40.94 kW of net power output, 2.904 × 10⁻⁴ kg/s of hydrogen production, 3.701% energy efficiency, and 1.662% exergy efficiency. From an economic perspective, the lowest levelized hydrogen cost was obtained with R1243zf as 1.364 USD/kg, whereas the shortest payback period was achieved with R227ea as 7.4 years. In addition, R227ea yielded the highest annual income of 63,383 USD and the highest CO₂ emission reduction of 82.10 tons/year. The Sustainability Index values varied between 1.012 and 1.018 for the investigated fluids. Overall, the findings indicate that R227ea offers the best thermodynamic and environmental performance, while R1234yf represents a promising low-GWP alternative for geothermal-assisted green hydrogen production. The results also demonstrate that working-fluid selection should be performed through an integrated thermodynamic, economic, and environmental assessment rather than relying on a single performance criterion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geothermal
• Hydrogen
• Thermodynamic
• Environmental
• Economic

Kaynakça

1. [1] Yilmaz F, Ozturk M, Selbas R. A parametric examination of the energetic, exergetic, and environmental performances of the geothermal energy-based multigeneration plant for sustainable products. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2025; 143:947-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.12.236
2. [2] Turgut HSA, Dincer I. Assessment of a new binary geothermal based methanol synthesis plant with power, hydrogen and freshwater. Energy Conversion and Management 2023; 294:117576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117576
3. [3] Tekkanat B, Yuksel YE, Ozturk M. The evaluation of hydrogen production via a geothermal-based multigeneration system with 3E analysis and multi-objective optimization. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2023; 48(22):8002-8021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.185
4. [4] Liu Q, Yang F, Liu X, Zhang X, Yang Z. Thermo-economic evaluation and working fluid screening for supercritical ORCs driven by medium-temperature geothermal sources. Renewable Energy 2026; 257:124795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.124795
5. [5] Gutiérrez-Negrín LCA. Evolution of worldwide geothermal power 2020–2023. Geotherm Energy 2024; 12:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-024-00290-w
6. [6] Ata S, Kahraman A, Sahin R, Aksoy M. Fourth-generation fluid effect in geothermal-based hydrogen production combined system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 75:637-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.05.073
7. [7] Xiao Q, Zhang L, Zhao L. Multi-aspect analysis and optimization of a novel geothermal-based power, liquefied hydrogen, and freshwater production system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 66:521-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.344
8. [8] Kelem UR, Yilmaz F. An innovative geothermal based multigeneration plant: Thermodynamic and economic assessment for sustainable outputs with compressed hydrogen. Energy 2024; 295:131084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131084

9. [9] Toker SC, Kizilkan O, Nižetić S. Development and modeling of power, hydrogen and freshwater production based on a novel double-flash geothermal power plant. Energy 2024; 309:133082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133082
10. [10] Yildirim E, Mert I, Baydar C, Yagli H, Koc Y. The Pruned Network Approach: A feature optimizing based deep learning framework to estimate hydrogen production potential from geothermal energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2026; 197:152571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.152571
11. [11] Song Y, Feng Y, Li Y, Kong R, Xiao S. Evolutionary patterns and future trends of China’s hydrogen energy industry policy. Energy Reports 2026; 15:108966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2025.108966
12. [12] Li M, Liu B. A Comprehensive Review of China’s Hydrogen Energy Industry Chain: Technologies, Economics, and Policy Implications. Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering 2026; (in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpse.2026.100431
13. [13] Evro S, Tomomewo OS. Green hydrogen integration in distributed energy systems: A comprehensive techno-economic and policy analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2025; 148:149895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.06.085
14. [14] Tomomewo OS, Bade SO, Benarbia A. A cross-regional analysis of policies, regulations, and incentives from the United States, the European Union, China, and Australia for shaping hydrogen economy. Applied Energy 2026; 406:127240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.127240
15. [15] Hamlehdar M, Beardsmore G, Narsilio GA. Hydrogen production from low-temperature geothermal energy – A review of opportunities, challenges, and mitigating solutions. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 77:742-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.06.104
16. [16] Afshardoost A, Shamsi M. Sustainable development and optimization of a geothermal–biomass hybrid energy system for green hydrogen production. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2025; 27:101106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2025.101106
17. [17] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Green hydrogen strategy: A guide to design. 2024. ISBN: 978-92-9260-611-4
18. [18] Bozkurt A, Genc MS, Seyitoglu SS. 7E analysis of a low-temperature geothermal and solar energy integrated hybrid system for sustainable power and hydrogen generation. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 2025; 66:104073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2025.104073
19. [19] Slimene MB, Basem A, Hasan MA, Le LT, Khlifi MA, Islam S, Atamuratova Z, Sabirov S, Mukhitdinov O, Mahariq I. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a thermal–thermochemical system integrating biomass gasification and geothermal energy for power, methanol, and liquefied hydrogen. Applied Thermal Energineering 2026; 287:129438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2025.1294
20. [20] He R, Huang L. A comprehensive thermo-enviro-economic assessments of a novel geothermal-based multigeneration process: Integrating power generation, hydrogen production, CO2 capture, and absorption cooling. Journal of Environmental Management 2026; 380:124957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124957
21. [21] Bouazzi Y, Ahmed Z, Aminian SA, Musa VA, Shaban M, Singh NSS, Rajhi W, Louhichi B. Advanced solar–geothermal polygeneration system for CO2-based power, hydrogen, and freshwater recovery via transcritical CO2 rankine cycle. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2026; 103:103301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2025.103301
22. [22] Atak YN. Performance assessment of a solar-geothermal based Organic Rankine Cycle system producing green hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2026; 212:153726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.153726
23. [23] Ko J, Kim Y, Kim E, Kim J. Integrated iron-chlorine electrochemical process for hydrogen sulfide removal and hydrogen production in geothermal power plants: Techno-economic and life cycle assessment. Energy Conversion and Management 2026; 354:121274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121274
24. [24] Zoghi M, Gharaie S, Hosseinzadeh N, Zare A. Design optimization and performance comparison of green hydrogen production via PEM, alkaline, and solid oxide electrolyzers coupled with a geothermal power system. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 2026 71:104540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2026.104540
25. [25] Yilmaz F, Ozturk M, Selbas R. Thermodynamic and exergoenvironmental assessment of an innovative geothermal energy assisted multigeneration plant combined with recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle for the production of cleaner products. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 75:24-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.12.048
26. [26] Zuo Z, Saraswat M, Mahariq I, Nutakki TUK, Albani A, Seikh AH, Lee VF. Multi-criteria thermoeconomic optimization of a geothermal energy-driven green hydrogen production plant coupled to an alkaline electrolyzer. Process Safety and Envrionmental Protection 2024; 182:154-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.11.031
27. [27] Bamisile O, Cai D, Adedeji M, Dagbasi M, Li J, Hu Y, Huang Q. Thermo-enviro-exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel geothermal-solar-wind micro-multi-energy system for cleaner energy production. Process Safety and Envrionmental Protection 2023; 170:157-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.11.068
28. [28] Liu Q, Yang F, Liu X, Zhang X, Yang Z. Thermo-economic evaluation and working fluid screening for supercritical ORCs driven by medium-temperature geothermal sources. Renewable Energy 2026; 257:124795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.124795
29. [29] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approch (Eighth ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York (2015). ISBN: 9789814595292.
30. [30] Dincer I. Thermodynamics: a smart approach, John Wiley&Sons Ltd (2020). ISBN:9781119387862
31. [31] Karabuga A, Ayarturk H, Yakut MZ, Utlu Z, Iseri H, Kilic S. Thermodynamic analysis of an evacuated tube solar collector system for industrial building application: A case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 68:17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.04.139
32. [32] Karabuga A, Yakut MZ, Utlu Z. Assessment of thermodynamic performance of a novelty solar-ORC configuration based hydrogen production: An experimental study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2023; 48(99):39154-39168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.093
33. [33] Yilmaz F, Ozturk M, Selbas F. Proposal of an advanced hybrid multigeneration plant using solar energy for sustainable hydrogen generation: A thermodynamic and environmental analysis. Renewable Energy 2025; 243:122621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.122621
34. [34] Yilmaz F. A comprehensive energy, exergy, economic, and environmental (4E) assessment of a geothermal-driven polygeneration plant with energy storage using compressed hydrogen. Journal of Energy Storage 2025; 114(Part B):115796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2025.115796
35. [35] Almadhor A, Samad S, Shaban M, Abed AM, Alhomayani FM, Abduvalieva D, Knani S, Alruwaili A, Alturise F, Alkhalaf S. An eco-friendly multi-generation system integrating geothermal-driven power and cooling cycles with LNG regasification and hydrogen production: a thermo-economic optimization. Applied Thermal Engineering 2025; 277:126973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2025.126973
36. [36] Ata S, Kahraman A, Sahin R, Aksoy M. Thermo-enviro-economic analysis of different power cycle configurations for green hydrogen production from waste heat. Energy Conversion and Management 2024; 301:118072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118072
37. [37] Yilmaz F. Design and performance analysis of hydro and wind-based power and hydrogen generation system for sustainable development. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 2024; 64:103742. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2024.103742